Recent Questions - Psychology & Neuroscience Stack Exchangemost recent 30 from psychology.stackexchange.com2018-08-14T23:01:56Zhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/feedshttp://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/rdfhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204570Realism in Psychologyuser1581390https://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200452018-08-14T22:51:18Z2018-08-14T22:51:18Z
<p>Like in any science there are two ways to learn:</p>
<ol>
<li>You can build a theory about something, then test it out on some relevant sample.</li>
<li>You can select some sample based on certain criteria and and analyze what is unique to that sample, that is analyze and classify rules from empirical data alone. This is what I mean by realism.</li>
</ol>
<p>An early example of realism in a closely related topic is Machiavelli in political philosophy. 'The Prince' is a lose collection of analysis of the methods of dealing with people that already worked at the time of writing, based on personal experience and history. It is not based on an analytical unified theory nor was it derived from anything.</p>
<p>An opposite example is communism. It is a theory about human nature that needed to be tested, which is not based on an analysis of "what already works in practice".</p>
<ul>
<li>What are early examples of realism in psychology?</li>
<li>What are rules or theories in psychology which were derived from empirical data alone? specifically relating to self realization (like Maslow), happiness and creativity?</li>
</ul>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204550Auto proclamed coachers vs pscycologyRolando Corratge Nieveshttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200422018-08-14T20:48:09Z2018-08-14T20:48:09Z
<p>I am an enthusiast of psychology, the part that I like most is the statistics that involve the psychometric test, OCEAN and the studies of the different classifications of approach and traits that people do, like dark triad etc... this seems to me a real psicologic science. A friend of mine follow Garret Kramer , Michael Neill ,Christine Hassler. He say me to like this phisosophy/ psicology. I found bogus not well defined ideas in this people. Im wrong or they are not real psicology science, and why?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204531Do other forms of bias have their own terminologies, similar to "Stockholm Syndrome"?Scott Taylorhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200402018-08-14T19:14:01Z2018-08-14T20:38:21Z
<p>Three examples would be:</p>
<p>Someone who makes an expensive purchase, and even when they are met with objective facts stating why it was a inferior purchase, they continue to sing it's praise. </p>
<p>Someone who blindly follows and defends their political party affiliation, even when confronted with facts showing why it's a bad affiliation.</p>
<p>Someone who commits to a lifestyle choice, and even when confronted with facts showing why it's a bad choice, they refused to believe it.</p>
<p>I know an all encompassing term might be cognitive bias, but I was hoping for specific terminologies to the three types of biases above.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204520Are there some logical rules as to how people select their mates? Like what preferences they select?mavaviljhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/154942018-08-14T17:02:22Z2018-08-14T17:02:22Z
<p>Are there some logical rules as to how people select their mates? Like what preferences they select? And what are they based on? Or what should they rationally be based on (since there's also irrational mate selection which leads to broken families, sick children etc.).</p>
<p>There's e.g. the question of whether people should mate with "their level" or whether e.g. people of "low mating value" should not mate at all even if they "wanted", because them mating may not produce beneficial outcomes.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/20450-1psychology today is increasingly creating awareness among everyone [on hold]karthikhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200252018-08-14T11:41:10Z2018-08-14T11:41:10Z
<p>Today psychology is the only logy which communicates with the world and also convinces everyone on personal feelings.But psychology is a mind related activity and how to extract the specific bone system from others and what is the process involved in it?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204480Reading "Anxiety" Problem [on hold]user573999https://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200332018-08-14T04:16:33Z2018-08-14T06:51:18Z
<p>Firstly, I hope this question is posted in the right section, or at least in the right website. If not, I apologize.</p>
<p>This problem has been bothering me for months. As my school has reopened for the semester, I hope to get rid of it as soon as possible.</p>
<p>My problem:</p>
<p>Whenever I read, I tend to focus on the words rather than the meaning of the sentence. I always read the sentences all over again until I understand them well. At the same time, I feel anxious because I blame myself for not being able to understand the simple sentences. Also, the intense focus seemed to make me hold my breathe. When I noticed that I am holding my breath, I will breathe deeply. Furthermore, I would like to add that I also experience tension in the head. I think one can experience this feeling by thinking about the brain. It sounds funny but if I think about my brain (being in the head), there is a tension produced similar to the one I experienced while I read.</p>
<p>As a result, I am always breathing deeply, feeling tense and anxious everytime I read.</p>
<p>Some background and my theory:</p>
<p>Ever since I graduated from Diploma studies, I picked up reading as a hobby. I was eager to read many books therefore I tried to learn speed-reading. What I learnt from speed-reading is to reduce any subvocalization (reading in the mind, as though you are reading the book out loud) and number of fixations (see the words in chunks rather than reading word by word left to right). These techniques seemed to be exciting to practice from the start. Despite that, I stopped using these techniques as I saw no improvement, in addition that they robbed my joy of reading. However, I was faced with a great problem.</p>
<p>Recall that I practiced the technique to reduce the number of fixations. As I stopped using this technique, words are jumbled up when I read.</p>
<p>An example of a sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What you suffer from is Tension Headache.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a simple sentence anybody can understand immediately in one look.</p>
<p>However, I read the sentence as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What suffer you from Tension Headache.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seems as though my mind automatically mess up the sentence's structure by selectively noticing key words (notice that the words 'suffer' and 'Tension Headache' is pushed forward) and cutting out words (notice 'is' is missing). This is just an example.</p>
<p>Because of this, it is essential for me to focus intensely when I read to understand the sentences, thereby having the problem I have stated above. Also, I find this problem affecting my hearing too. For example, I tend to focus hearing the words rather than understanding the meaning of the speech.</p>
<p>I find this problem extremely detrimental as I need to do a lot of reading in university. Does anybody know the proper reason and cure for this? I will appreciate any help.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/20447-1Speaking before (without) thinking? [on hold]Cazohttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200302018-08-13T19:31:16Z2018-08-13T19:31:16Z
<p>Is it neurologically possible to speak before or without thinking? My guess, which may be completely obvious, is that no, of course not, but I am seeking validation for my guess.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204460Personal question [on hold]Ali Glennhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200282018-08-13T16:10:12Z2018-08-13T16:19:38Z
<p>So I've been diagnosed so many things since I was 12. I just moved to idaho, and I come to realize their mental health system is in need of serious help. Im un treated because they won't help me.
Anyway, so I've come here for a question. </p>
<p>I talk a lot. I don't mean to... I'm fully aware I talk but sometimes it seems like I can't control it. I don't drink or eat a lot of sugar, nor caffeen at all because it gives me major anxiety attacks. I'll be talking to my boyfriend about like 8 topics at once, I always forget what I'm talking about, and it's random stuff and sometimes stuff I'm worried about, I'm always worried. I even compulsively talking uncomfortable in my head before bed... To the point I can close my eyes, still be awake, and see black with white scetches of people, scary stuff, dead animals, there's always the same little girl, also. I hate that I'm aware of this but feels like I can't control this.
I guess my question is, since I can't get health insurance, what are ways I can help myself. My boyfriend really doesn't like it, but he is a very understanding and supportive person. So he never gets mad. Just annoyed, which makes since. I am to.. haha
I know this probably isn't the most appropriate pace to ask this question... But I'm running out of options and it has gotten so much worse the older I get and it seems like the more trama I go through... The more I get talkitive (sometimes I can talk for hours. I talk tomyself allot, almost as if I'm two people having a conversation.)
I did try to get help when I was in AZ and insured. But because I was aware, he said then there's nothing wrong... But idk that doesn't seem right to me. I asked him if it could be a form of ADHD? And. He said because I'm an adult it's rare id have it. But I think he didn't understand me because I ment, maybe I went untreated. I got missed diagnosed up the wall a a kid. I finally have a diagnostic that 5 doctors haven't changed. PTSD, BPD, Anxiety disorder, clinical depression, and Bi-poler type 1. Idk if that help you guys out at all knowing those things. I did read online that those thing can cause it... But the treatments online don't seem relistic and kinda mean towards people who actually suffer from this.
Edit* should also mention I obsess over thoughts and over worry about everything. I feel like I picked this up from my mom who I believe has Munchausen disease because she fits into that category to a T. She also made me believe I was sick for 2 years. Giving me meds doctors didn't subscribe to me directly. Which I feel where my parinioa of being sick or getting hurt comes from. I freak out about that stuff. And I feel like it triggers my talkitiveness also. </p>
<p>So, here I am. Help! Haha </p>
<p>Thank you! </p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/20444-1Always Follow Other's Way [on hold]Pushpamalhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/199752018-08-13T09:29:28Z2018-08-13T10:19:41Z
<p>When I do something with others (one or more) I always used to follow their ideas or their ways, because I always used to think if I ignore their ideas it will hurt them or they will lose me. I always used to do that either I have a better solution than their one.
This is very big problem for me because sometime my big hopes are losing from me.
Why this happen?
How I can avoid that ? </p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204423Why do views make you happy?zoobyhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/103322018-08-12T17:56:31Z2018-08-13T18:49:33Z
<p>Why does having a nice view from your window make you happy? (As in people ask for a hotel room with a nice view).</p>
<p>Could this be replicated by simply having a large TV screen showing a view?</p>
<p>What views make people the happiest/saddest?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/20441-1If out there is located inside our brains how does nature engineer this deception?AbrahamHhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200152018-08-12T13:21:06Z2018-08-13T15:05:08Z
<p>If outside there is located inside our brains and our brains are the ones that see and feel everything, why is it when someone talks to me it seems he is looking towards me, too? </p>
<p>How does nature engineer this deception from the perspective of bodily parts. It seems like some peculiar entity is seeing and feeling everything.</p>
<p>Why do we experience different shapes, (we perceive different people look different, different kinds of plants etc) But some peculiar thing should be extending out there as a source of data from which our senses and brain output what we experience as our brain reality. How does we perceive different forms (i dont worry about colors) from this mysterious source.</p>
<p>I hope u infer my query.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204390What are some books that go through the theories of different psychoanalysts? [on hold]Julian Jefkohttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200122018-08-11T04:58:32Z2018-08-11T04:58:32Z
<p>Over the past year, I've been interested in Freud and Lacan, and have a read a good amount of both of them. I want to learn about other related people (Adler, Klein, Jung, etc.) to see what they thought and compare them with Freud. I don't want to read their own writings though, I think that would take too much time; I just want a book that goes through important psychoanalysts and gives a good description of their ideas. Any recommendations? </p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204372Study on the learning of programming concepts in pre-university studentsMarinahttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200042018-08-10T00:48:39Z2018-08-14T11:54:14Z
<p>I want to investigate the ability of a group of students to learn programming concepts in one hour.</p>
<p>The students are grouped by ages: 6 - 17.
The tasks are divided into concept and type. Each concept has example tasks, to correct code, to copy code and to write code without help.
I measure the number of tasks completed and the time elapsed in each one.</p>
<p>What is the best way to analyze this data? And to represent them?</p>
<p>UPDATE</p>
<p>I wanted to compare the performance of students by age and gender.
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VT4dp.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VT4dp.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
<p>I draw a simple bar chart with the means of the tasks performed correctly.</p>
<p>But the experiments have different durations and much dispersion. There is some more reliable statistical method than analyzing only the mean.</p>
<p>I am not an expert in the subject and neither in statistics.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204363Why do teenagers take so many selfies?Curiohttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/200032018-08-09T20:47:53Z2018-08-12T08:03:14Z
<p>I know that there is a similar question about <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/9542">this</a></p>
<p>But my question is different. In fact I'm talking about teenagers and I'm asking the causes of this fact, not if there is a correlation with narcissism.</p>
<p>Well, I've noticed that social network users are mostly female (I mean, people who post more selfies are girls). And in my school almost every girl (500 girls) posts selfies. Why? Why do they need it? Furthermore their photos are strange, they usually pose in a weird way. Here are some examples:</p>
<p><a href="https://goo.gl/images/3QHMgM" rel="nofollow noreferrer">First</a></p>
<p><a href="https://goo.gl/images/THicGc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Second</a></p>
<p>Then, why do girls post much more than guys?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204342What happens if you lie to a child during language acquisition?zoobyhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/103322018-08-09T18:35:24Z2018-08-10T10:48:39Z
<p>During language acquisition a child can learn 20 words a day. What would happen if the parent decided to lie to the child during this time so that whenever the child said "what that?" the parent made up a random word.</p>
<p>Would this permanently stay in the child's mind forever? Or would the child just learn the "real" word from everyday speech?</p>
<p>As an aside, for years I thought the word "modest" meant the opposite of what it means. Because it is only ever said sarcastically. As in "wow, your <em>sooooo</em> modest!" And that's just one word.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204330Converting human's memory into digital dataRazyDavehttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/172622018-08-09T15:57:41Z2018-08-09T15:57:41Z
<p>I am wondering whether converting someone's memory into digital data is possible or not. It may sound ridiculous. However, if chance is not 0 then what kind of studies might be used? What kind of theories and facts can be used to make convert someone's memory into digital data?</p>
<p>I just watched these two videos and now I am even more excited thinking about it.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqKTdIZIBfU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqKTdIZIBfU</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te6VFZeaADY&amp;index=2&amp;list=PLzCrlK3-4PXyOs4nuDpYSTScUYFJt3L4l" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te6VFZeaADY&amp;index=2&amp;list=PLzCrlK3-4PXyOs4nuDpYSTScUYFJt3L4l</a>
(Second video starts at 7:56)</p>
<p>Thank you very much</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204312DISC correlation with Big Five personalityFizzhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/97692018-08-09T11:07:28Z2018-08-09T15:00:57Z
<p>Apparently DISC (dominance, inducement, submission, and compliance) is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC_assessment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">kind of personality test</a>.</p>
<p>When/where is it used and how does it correlate with Big Five?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204291DISC vs MBTI personality types researchAbhinav97https://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/199992018-08-09T09:12:27Z2018-08-09T09:12:27Z
<p>I Wanted to know whether there has been any research on mbti and disc personalty mapping and the correlations between them.If so can anyone link to some research papers</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204272Study purportedly proving psychedelics induce a "heightened state of consciousness"Fizzhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/97692018-08-09T06:19:40Z2018-08-09T07:31:58Z
<p>The Guardian headlines on 28 Nov 2017: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/19/brain-scans-reveal-mind-opening-response-to-psychedelic-drug-trip-lsd-ketamine-psilocybin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Psychedelic drugs induce 'heightened state of consciousness', brain scans show"</a>. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Healthy volunteers who received LSD, ketamine or psilocybin, a compound found in magic mushrooms, were found to have more random brain activity than normal while under the influence, according to a study into the effects of the drugs.</p>
<p>Researchers at the University of Sussex and Imperial College, London, measured the activity of neurons in people’s brains as the drugs took hold. Similar measurements have shown that when people are asleep or under anaesthetic, their neurons tend to fire in a more predictable way than when they are awake.</p>
<p>“What we find is that under each of these psychedelic compounds, this specific measure of global conscious level goes up, so it moves in the other direction. The neural activity becomes more unpredictable,” said Anil Seth, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Sussex. “Until now, we’ve only ever seen decreases compared to the baseline of the normal waking state.”</p>
<p>The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, appears 74 years to the day after the Swiss chemist Albert Hoffman went on the world’s first LSD trip. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>After the Guardian article just gets into a long expose of Hoffman's experience. But it does seem to identify one of the authors a bit later on:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Robin Carhart-Harris, a researcher at Imperial College who took part in the study, said the sudden increase in randomness in brain activity appeared to reflect a deeper and richer conscious state.</p>
<p>“People tend to associate phrases like ‘a higher state of consciousness’ with hippy speak and mystical nonsense. This is potentially the beginning of the demystification, showing its physiological and biological underpinnings,” he said. “Maybe this is a neural signature of the mind opening.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>N.B. a quick search found <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZIaTaNR3gk" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a TEDx talk by Carhart-Harris</a> on the topic, but it seems older than this study. Also an older (2014) headline: <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/dr-robin-carhart-harris-is-the-first-scientist-in-over-40-years-to-test-lsd-on-humans-and-youre-next-9667532.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Dr Robin Carhart-Harris is the first scientist in over 40 years to test LSD on humans - and you're next"</a>.</p>
<p>So I have some questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Can anyone locate this Scientific Reports study?</li>
<li>Has there been any more skeptical commentary on it? Or is there (silent) agreement that it really proves psychedelics induce a heightened state of consciousness?</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>Based on a photo credit to Muthukumaraswamy in that Guardian article, I found a 2016 paper <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.02.010" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Increased Global Functional Connectivity Correlates with LSD-Induced Ego Dissolution"</a> co-authored by many, including Muthukumaraswamy and Carhart-Harris, but it was in <em>Current Biology</em>, and the finding don't quite match, although they are somewhat related;
the focus of this paper is a bit different "ego dissolution" etc.</p>
<p>There's also a paper in Scientific Reports published around a month before the Guardian article <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13282-7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression: fMRI-measured brain mechanisms"</a>, on which Carhart-Harris is lead author, but it doesn't ever mention consciousness--except in the title of a [self-]citation (from 2014)... <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs"</a>, which was later (2016) <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00423" rel="nofollow noreferrer">commented upon by David Papo</a>. But I don't see the "heightened" claims in either of these... however they do debate the </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“entropic brain hypothesis” [which] holds that the quality of conscious states depends on the system's entropy</p>
</blockquote>
<p>which might be the same thing; I'll have to read these in detail to figure that out. Still, is there a Sci. Rep. paper with additional evidence as the Guardian article seems to suggest?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204251Could we develop a notion of conceivability that would allow us to imagine impossible/inconsistent/illogical things?Forsetehttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/190712018-08-09T00:54:59Z2018-08-10T15:14:41Z
<p>There are things that we cannot imagine because they are impossible (like a solution to Russell's set theory, since it is impossible to reach that solution because it is illogical.)</p>
<p>Some months ago, discussing with a user in this site, he said that although no one has reached that notion, it could be the case that someone in the future could achieve it, but he did not know the topic well enough to make any meaningful conclusion. (<a href="https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/73718/2018/2/28">https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/73718/2018/2/28</a>)</p>
<p>Maybe someone here could help me</p>
<p>So could we develop a notion of conceivability that would allow us to imagine all of these things? Even all things that do not exist or cannot exist or are impossible like a solution to Russell's set problem or a thing that is illogical but at the same time is logical or inventing a new logic (or illogic) system...etc? What would be needed to reach such notion of conceivability? A change in the laws of physics? Or just biological evolution in our brains??</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204240Is the placebo effect a form of cognitive bias?GeoGeoGeometryhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/199942018-08-08T22:08:13Z2018-08-09T07:51:39Z
<p>Recently I’ve been trying to get a better understanding for the cause and mechanism of the placebo effect. A friend suggested that the placebo effect is a form of cognitive bias, but I’ve had trouble finding evidence for this. </p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204233How do I interpret an effect of electrode position in ERP research?LennaKBhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/98532018-08-08T08:23:13Z2018-08-08T08:23:13Z
<p>The example I have in my research is that both conditions show greater amplitude and latency in the parietal electrode sites than in the occipital ones.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how meaningful this is for my research question, which is primarily concerned with how processing of the two conditions potentially differs (spoiler: no effects of condition!). The effect of electrode sites does not interact with anything, so is just the case that there is greater activity in the parietal sites - can I argue something about the processing involved in both conditions based on this finding?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/204122Performance of a damaged brainDuttaAhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/171512018-08-07T13:02:46Z2018-08-13T12:05:11Z
<p>I have heard <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/brain-re-wires-itself-after-damage-246049" rel="nofollow noreferrer">stories/reports</a> that if a certain part of the brain (taking care of certain functions) is damaged other parts take over the function of the damaged part.</p>
<p>Intuitively this could mean 2 things:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>We are not using the brain to its full capability.</p></li>
<li><p>The performance of the brain will take a hit due to other brain centers taking over the functionality of the damaged center.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For me the first one does not make sense since evolutionary selection makes sure we are endowed with the most efficient systems. So what is happening exactly when brain centers get damaged?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/203993Brain Waves and Psilocybin MushroomBogdan Volosincuhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/199672018-08-06T08:06:08Z2018-08-09T06:23:07Z
<p>Is there any research on brain waves when on Psilocybin Mushrooms or LSD ?
Thanks</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/203904Why is a cross-dominant/ambidextrous brain more susceptible to mental illness?geocalc33https://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/198602018-08-05T02:37:49Z2018-08-10T10:52:28Z
<p>The left and right hemispheres of the brain are connected by a bundle of fibers called the corpus collosum. Ambidextrous, left handers and cross-dominant people have symmetrical brains as opposed to right handers, who have larger left hemispheres. Cross-dominant, lefties and ambidextrous people also have a stronger corpus collosum which lends itself to better communication between the two hemispheres. It seems like better communication between hemispheres would be an evolutionary benefit.</p>
<p>So, I am curious as to why a symmetrical brain would have a higher rate of mental illness than a right handed/left brained person, as reported in this news release by Imperial College London: <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/81322/mixed-handed-children-more-likely-have-mental/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mixed-handed children more likely to have mental health, language and scholastic problems, say researchers</a></p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/185726What percentage of those diagnosed with schizophrenia didn't have brain abnormalities?freethinker36https://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/176822017-12-01T07:19:03Z2018-08-12T21:00:55Z
<p>Scientists in a <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150707102051.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">wide study</a> of subcortical brain abnormalities from the ENIGMA Consortium, Schizophrenia Working Group, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201563#t2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">published</a> in Molecular Psychiatry, analyzed the brain scans of more than 2,000 people diagnosed with schizophrenia. </p>
<p>I doubt diagnosis is 100% accurate, so I'm thinking a percentage of those diagnosed didn't have abnormalities. What is that percentage? (There is a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201563/tables/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">table</a> in the Molecular Psychiatry article, with information which might or might not be related to my question, but I don't know how to read it).</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/121915Dual systems theory: in what sense are the systems 'unreal'?user1205197https://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/83102015-09-16T06:14:06Z2018-08-14T16:00:10Z
<p>In the course of explain dual systems theory, Kahneman (2011) discusses the Heider study, in which: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>you see a large triangle, a small triangle, and a circle moving around
a shape that looks like a schematic view of a house with an open door.
Viewers see an aggressive large triangle bullying a smaller triangle,
a terrified circle, the circle and the small triangle joining forces
to defeat the bully.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Viewers perceive the movements of the shapes in causal terms. Kahneman then goes on to say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The psychology of causality was the basis of my decision to describe
psychological processes by metaphors of agency, with little concern
for consistency. I sometimes refer to System 1 as an agent with
certain traits and preferences, and sometimes as an associative
machine that represents reality by a complex pattern of links. The
system and the machine are fictions; my reason for using them is that
they fit the way we think about causes. Heider’s triangles and circles
are not really agents—it is just very easy and natural to think of
them that way. It is a matter of mental economy. I assume that you
(like me) find it easier to think about the mind if we describe what
happens in terms of traits and intentions (the two systems) and
sometimes in terms of mechanical regularities (the associative
machine). I do not intend to convince you that the systems are real,
any more than Heider intended you to believe that the large triangle
is really a bully.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I've never been able to understand the distinction he is trying to draw there. In what sense are the two systems 'unreal'?</p>
<p>Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/550910At what age are women perceived to be most attractive?user3116https://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/02014-01-25T10:12:59Z2018-08-14T12:53:51Z
<p>Someone once quoted a research at me:</p>
<p>Men were shown photographs of female body parts and asked to judge the attractiveness. The result was that men (of all ages) found 14 year old females the most (sexually) attractive.</p>
<p>I have tried to locate this or similar research, but to no avail.</p>
<p><strong>Do you know of experiments researching at what age (men or) women are perceived to be most attractive (by male or female judges)?</strong></p>
<p>Are there any moderators of this judgement (like age or gender of judge)?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/169816What causes laughter?Alphahttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/432012-09-27T13:05:41Z2018-08-14T21:23:25Z
<p>I was looking at this video from VSauce: "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6nSOgsI_vo">Why did the chicken cross the road?</a>", where several facts about this old joke are exposed and explained.</p>
<p>At some point, (6:59) Michael explains that there is a theory, based on the paper <em>Computer Model of a "Sense of Humour"</em> by I. M. Suslov, that says that laughter is the result of the released energy on the pre-judgement one makes about the result of the joke.</p>
<p>Still, this theory does not account for factors like being under the influence of drugs (on which it is generally easier to laugh at things), situations like tickling or other forced laughters like laughter gas itself.</p>
<p>So, which is the currently, widely accepted theory that explains what causes laughter?</p>
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/73511How is the Stanford Prison Experiment connected to Conformity?xenonhttps://psychology.stackexchange.com/users/5922012-04-15T13:20:06Z2018-08-09T01:48:12Z
<p>I am still not very clear with what the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Zimbardo was trying to conclude about from the experiment.</p>
<p>From Wikipedia, it says the conclusion was to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when
provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional
support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive
dissonance theory and the power of authority.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How does this have any relation or impact on the Conformity theory? </p>
<p>I know that the experiments by Sherif and Asch have concluded the theory of Conformity quite clearly. The Zimbardo's one however seems somewhat implicit. The notes that I read seem to put the Stanford Prison experiment right after the ones by Sherif and Asch. So I believe it should have some relation with the Conformity theory. But I cannot see clearly how is it related to the Conformity theory, particularly in the context of Communications.</p>